This debate performance will make a lot of people take a second look at Mitt Romney. That’s not necesarily a good thing for Mitt—the closer people look at him, the less they like. Mitt got good reviews, but we have to wait for what President Obama said to sink in, and for what Mitt Romney said to sink, period. Mitt Romney seems to be an experiment in just how far a complete fraud can go. I thought we settled that with George W. Bush—and the scary part about that experiment was that the answer was “two terms as president.”

Most of what Mitt Romney said last night has already been contradicted—sometimes by Democrats, sometime by Mitt’s own staff, and always by the facts. If Obama’s strategy was questionable, at least his facts were not. You can certainly question Obama’s approach, but you can’t question what he said. You can and should question every statement Mitt Romney made.

Mitt claims that his $5 trillion tax cut would be paid for by the extra earnings resulting from robust growth. In other words, for his plan to work, it has to succeed beyond anybody’s wildest expectations. I don’t think you get it, Mitt—the plan is supposed to be the thing that makes everything better. It shouldn’t be dependent on everything getting better before it will work.

The only thing that made Mitt Romney’s lies about his tax plan look small were Mitt’s lies about healthcare. Mitt said his plan would cover people with preexisting conditions. Yes... as long as they also have preexisting health insurance. Mitt’s plan doesn’t provide coverage for people who have lost their insurance. I’m not an expert, but aren’t those the people who need insurance? Mitt kept saying that he wants the individual states to do for healthcare what he did in Massachusetts. There’s a brilliant idea! Why accomplish something by doing it once when you can get it done by doing it 50 times?

Lehrer looks over his notes before the first presidential debate, Oct. 3, 2012, in Denver. (AP/Pool)

It was a rough night for President Barack Obama and Big Bird at the first of three presidential debates. It was even worse for Jim Lehrer.

The 78-year-old moderator, who is executive editor and former anchor of "PBS NewsHour," was torn apart by critics who said he lost control of the debate, held at the University of Denver, as the two candidates talked over him throughout the 90-minute exchange.

Lehrer's "open-ended questions frequently lacked sharpness," Associated Press television critic David Bauder wrote, noting that at one point Lehrer asked Romney, "Would you have a question you'd like to ask the president about what he just said?"

"I wondered if we needed a moderator since we had Mitt Romney," Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said on CNN.

"It's likely that he knew most of his efforts to move the candidates off their talking points were going to fail," USA Today's Robert Bianco wrote. "Which might be why, fairly quickly in, he seemed to give up."

Bianco was one of the few critics who defended him:

To be fair, the format put Lehrer in an almost impossible situation. If you give the candidates free rein, as he pretty much did, you end up with a debate that wanders, sometimes incomprehensibly, from surface point to surface point. If you step in too often, you risk grabbing the focus at an event that is supposed to be centered on the two candidates—and you get slammed as biased by whichever candidate suffers under your tighter control.

"Still," he added, "some control might have been nice. Perhaps Lehrer can keep that in mind if a 13th debate comes his way."

That may not happen.

As CNN contributor Erick Erickson tweeted: "I think it is safe to say last night was the last debate Jim Lehrer will moderate."

“Right now, you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas,” President Barack Obama said at Wednesday night’s debate in Denver. “I think most Americans would say that doesn’t make sense.”

“Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant.”

Benny, check the minutes talks by each candidate, Obama spoke for longer. Conversely, Romney spoke more words. What does that say? Obama fumbled and stuttered his way to defeat in his first debate. Facts are facts, he spoke longer than Romney, and that was the only negative to the mediator, as far as keeping control.

Obama got trucked...on style and substance. He appeared weak, disorganized and ill prepared...it's the perfect summation of his Presidency. That's why I'm so stunned that people expected him to do a better job...when has he shown the ability to be anything approaching even mediocre?

At about the 10 minute mark you can see him thinking "when we finish moving to Hawaii...will I put the statue of myself out front or in the main courtyard?"

“Right now, you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas,” President Barack Obama said at Wednesday night’s debate in Denver. “I think most Americans would say that doesn’t make sense.”

“Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant.”

He could have just completely owned Obama if he had said "Well you have't four years to fix that, why haven't you done anything about it?"

That would have shut him up, even if it was true or not (regarding the tax break).

2) Obama looked exhausted and tired. Needs a week at the spa before the next debate

3) Romney looked well-rested and healthy and vibrant.

4) Romney did say a lot of things that were contradicted by his earlier statements - but if you are a fan of politics, you already know this - Romney will say anything to any room at any time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=curfKaWmVs0

Obama was playing a DEFENSIVE GAME. he's leading by solid amounts in 9 of the 11 swing states. Romney has a HUGE path to take to get to the win, it's gonna be very very tough witohut OH or PENN where he is trailing badly. So Obama shows up, gives a boring, non-passionate performance with no major blunders, just letting Mitt talk nonstop with plenty of ammo to be used against him. Obama takes 1 day of bad headlines, and it's over. Romney just put out ten EASILY PROVABLE lies for no reason other than pleasing the room.

“Right now, you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas,” President Barack Obama said at Wednesday night’s debate in Denver. “I think most Americans would say that doesn’t make sense.”

“Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant.”

I guess the sad thing is Romney has been in business for 25 years and hasn't heard that a company can claim a deduction for the costs associated with moving jobs overseas(i.e closing a plant and then relocating to and overseas location).

Benny, check the minutes talks by each candidate, Obama spoke for longer. Conversely, Romney spoke more words. What does that say? Obama fumbled and stuttered his way to defeat in his first debate. Facts are facts, he spoke longer than Romney, and that was the only negative to the mediator, as far as keeping control.

I already know this...I do not need to check anything.

Bottom line, Romney did a great job running roughshod over Lehrer, who did a lousy job. Of that, there is no doubt. Romney made sure to be aggressive and dominate the discourse, the moderator let him get away with it, and Obama did not fight back by pointing out his lies.

Romney's domination of the moderator allowed him to keep topics like women's issues, immigration, his obfuscation of his own taxes, etc., off the agenda. Its possible Lehrer did not even have them as topics for debate, which would be even worse!